Authentic? 1944 Lee-Enfield No.4 T M47C with scope and transit case.

Bluetonic

Bluetonic

New member
EE Expired
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Location
Niagara
Looking for input on this rifle as to authenticity and market value too as I'm considering selling.

https://imgur.com/a/gqZE40y

Scope optics are clear and the turrets work.

Sling is new not original obviously.
 
Hi Blue. Looks original to me. The Kershaw Ltd Mark I scope is much earlier than the rifle. However if the scope serial is stamped on the top of the wrist of the rifle then it may have been refitted but to me rather unlikely. The scope still has the sun shade. The whole kit shows heavy blacking on the metal and the wood well used but not abused. Value is dependent on how bad someone needs one as there are many minty
examples out there that pop up for sale from time to time near $5K or better. JOHN
 
Alloy buttpad is odd - what are the markings on the bottom of the grip, close to the rear of the trigger guard? Are there any makers marks or anything there?

Bradley
 
There is an old internet article called, "is my Lee Enfield sniper rifle a fake?" It has plenty of information on the key identification features for most variations. Apparently it is so useful an article, that the fakers use it to spoof collectors!

-The No.32 Mk I scope does seem early for a 1944. The failings of those scopes were well understood by that point in the war.
-What markings are on the butt? And yes, the economy alloy buttplate is suspicious for a British rifle that was supposed to be the best of the best on the rack.
-Is there a serial number on the wrist of the butt?
-Is the number on the bracket the same as the scope, and on the wrist?
-Is there a number on the No.15 chest?
-Is there a No.8 scope can?

Price? I've seen a sliding scale of multiples based on a scopeless British T marked rifle, as $X. A British rifle and mismatched scope is 2X. A matched British pair is 3X. Canadian rifles and REL scopes go up and up. Matched chests, scope cases, WW1 dated USGI slings, scope caps, and other ephemera add to the final value.
 
PaveHammer said:
Alloy buttpad is odd ...snip...
Click to expand...

The butt plate is 100% correct for the period.

maple_leaf_eh said:
There is an old internet article called, "is my Lee Enfield sniper rifle a fake?" It has plenty of information on the key identification features for most variations. Apparently it is so useful an article, that the fakers use it to spoof collectors!

-The No.32 Mk I scope does seem early for a 1944. The failings of those scopes were well understood by that point in the war.
-What markings are on the butt? And yes, the economy alloy buttplate is suspicious for a British rifle that was supposed to be the best of the best on the rack.
-Is there a serial number on the wrist of the butt?
-Is the number on the bracket the same as the scope, and on the wrist?
-Is there a number on the No.15 chest?
-Is there a No.8 scope can?

Price? I've seen a sliding scale of multiples based on a scopeless British T marked rifle, as $X. A British rifle and mismatched scope is 2X. A matched British pair is 3X. Canadian rifles and REL scopes go up and up. Matched chests, scope cases, WW1 dated USGI slings, scope caps, and other ephemera add to the final value.
Click to expand...

That "article" is full of misinterpretation (& some misinformation) - many of the statements in it are specific to a very narrow window (late '44 - '45) of BSA + H&H production.

After looking at the photos of this rifle, some comments (without having it in my hands):

The scope mount is not numbered to the rifle (and has been re-numbered to yet another rifle)
The scope is an early MkI so the "least desirable" for a shooter - but it is a Kodak so quite desirable to a collector
The forend is a replacement
the rear sight is British late 1950s to 1960s drawing coded (so it is a replacement)
The rifle has been FTR'd so the above "issues" can be explained

Assuming the bolt matches the action, I would suggest a realistic price is in the $3500-$3800
+/- range and the transit case adds roughly $500 today so call it $3800-$4000 total.

a replacement bolt and /or butt stock could lower that a bit.
 
Last edited:
Lee Enfield said:
The butt plate is 100% correct for the period.

That "article" is full of misinterpretation (& some misinformation) - many of the statements in it are specific to a very narrow window (late '44 - '45) of BSA + H&H production.

After looking at the photos of this rifle, some comments:
....
Click to expand...

Did you notice the date on the article? It was written about 15 yrs ago, and there is a disclaimer.
 
PaveHammer said:
Alloy buttpad is odd - what are the markings on the bottom of the grip, close to the rear of the trigger guard? Are there any makers marks or anything there?

Bradley
Click to expand...

I agree that an alloy buttplate on a British rifle is unexpected. So, I went to my copy of Charles Stratton's "For Collectors Only, British Enfield Rifles Vol 2 Lee Enfield No 4 and 5 Rifles". In the chapter on butts (yes, there is one), brass buttplates are most common on British Mk I and Mk II rifles, with Zamak alloy versions appearing on Savages and Long Branches as an economy measure, with blackened steel butts as a further Canadian variation. For a run of the mill 1944 K serial block BSA to suddenly have a North American part is not in keeping with the best of British inspection standards. Sniper rifles were closely inspected at Holland and Holland for conformity before acceptance into the conversion stream.
 
Gents. Most Brit sniper rifles have the alloy butt plate. Brit made plates. A non reflective finish was so important that there were actual
blackened rounds made for snipers at one point. I suggest that some of you need better research material than a $20 book. JOHN
 
maple_leaf_eh said:
I agree that an alloy buttplate on a British rifle is unexpected. So, I went to my copy of Charles Stratton's "For Collectors Only, British Enfield Rifles Vol 2 Lee Enfield No 4 and 5 Rifles". In the chapter on butts (yes, there is one), brass buttplates are most common on British Mk I and Mk II rifles, with Zamak alloy versions appearing on Savages and Long Branches as an economy measure, with blackened steel butts as a further Canadian variation. For a run of the mill 1944 K serial block BSA to suddenly have a North American part is not in keeping with the best of British inspection standards. Sniper rifles were closely inspected at Holland and Holland for conformity before acceptance into the conversion stream.
Click to expand...

I'm not looking to pick a fight.

When they were produced, (with the exception of the MkI/I rear sight) No4 T rifles have the parts and furniture which were standard production of the day (per discussion with Peter L who quoted the instruction standard on Milsurps).

One major reason why No4T rifles retain Zamak/alloy butt plates today is that generally No4 T rifles were excluded from the massive UK FTR programs which started in 1945 and continued into 1956 (by observed examples).

So while I agree that most British service No4 rifles which we have today (nearly all FTR'd post WW2) have brass butt plates - but during the war brass was a strategic material which was rationed - "pot metal" such as Zamak/alloy was much more available for less strategic purposes.

I would estimate that the close to exactly 1/2 of 1944 M47C No4T rifles which I have personally observed have Zamak/alloy butt plates. By observation, in 1945 (British No4T) production the Brass butt plate was the majority (I have seen at least 2 1945 Dated M47C No4T rifles with Zamak/alloy butt plates).
 
Last edited:
jtaylor said:
Gents. Most Brit sniper rifles have the alloy butt plate. Brit made plates. A non reflective finish was so important that there were actual
blackened rounds made for snipers at one point. I suggest that some of you need better research material than a $20 book. JOHN
Click to expand...

What source are you reading?

I tend to rely on a truism from Bruce Canfield, 'buy the gun not the story.' Very few things are truly special and one of a kind in a total war. The whole idea was to produce all the necessary tools to win the war, but not expend resources so narrowly that legitimate needs in other sectors were unmet.
 
I should add, that Stratton leaned heavily on Major EGD Reynolds' 1960 book on the No.4. It is long long out of print. The line drawings are straight out of Reynolds. He explains in the introduction that his work is a survey of good and known correct examples.

Where Skennerton is categorized and has a beautiful layout, there are errors in his presentation. For example, that REL scopes were made in Sherbrooke, Quebec. That is not correct. All other information points that they were manufactured in the Toronto area.
 
Thanks all I will re-read again the thread later and try to advise some of the questions raised. All comments much appreciated.
 
K39478 was made at BSA Shirley and is a rifle that went through Factory Thorough Repair (F.T.R.) when it was rebuilt for the military. When that happened, parts from ANY of the manufacturers could have ended end up on it, as long as they were serviceable. The butt plate is not a problem at all. As many of these rifles remained in service up to the 1960s, so the post-WWII backsight is also not a problem.

The scope set is mismatched to this rifle, but this is the usual situation in North America where some surplus dealers reportedly stored the scope sets in one area and the rifles in another. When they sold them, they did not usually make the effort to match up the scope sets to their proper rifle. This scope set was mated with rifle E33596 / scope 6687 (apparently). This scope bracket had an old serial number milled out and a new serial number E33596 applied, presumably in service. The 1941 dated scope S/N 6687 by Kodak Limited* is too early a scope to be fitted to this rifle. In an F.T.R. a rifle would normally receive the most recent scope model e.g. I had a 1931 RSAF Enfield No. 4 Mk. I (T) that had a 1945 vintage No. 32 M. III scope fitted during F.T.R. Using a research database that I have created with the help of many collectors, I have been able to match-up over a dozen sets of serial numbered components (rifles, scope, scope cases). Sadly rifle E33596 has not surfaced yet.
* Peter Laidler initially published that KL was a variant marking for Kershaw, but on Milsurps.com he later posted that KL was Kodak Limited.

The No. 15 Mk. I chest is for a No. 4 Mk. I (T. LESS TELESCOPE). That is not a problem as chests were simply for shipping a rifle and for long term storage. They were only temporarily assigned to any rifle and a rifle serial number was simply handwritten onto a piece of paper that was slipped into a tin frame, usually tacked onto one end of the chest.

The key questions now are:

1. What, if any, number is on the wrist of the butt, below the cocking piece? This would be the serial number of the scope mated with that rifle after the F.T.R. There may be a cancelled earlier scope serial number ###### or -------. These numbers can be difficult to read accurately so look carefully.
2. Is there an "S51" mark on the underside of the butt?
 
My sniper also has the alloy buttplate I know if u look closely at the pic I posted of my Enfields....hi John it's Mark I thanks for those parts I got off you
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom